It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do Corporate "States" Compete with Nations?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 10:39 AM
Today, it seems like corporations are competing more and more directly with nations. ...and negotitating with them directly, like partners, and telling them what to do.

...Anyone have any observations or comments on this trend?

...Ideas about where will it lead?

On an interesting note: Machiavelli's "Prince" and Sun Tsu's "Art of War" are very popular with businessmen today. ...Both deal with winning, in government and in business - and at the core, they're all about "takeovers."


[edit on 29-1-2005 by soficrow]

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:19 AM
Mega-corporations are like governments that hide behind the 'state'. Wealth tends to find itself, and therefore it will always accumulate in the hands of those who understand credit, fractional banking and usury.

Wikipedia has some interesting points under the topic of Corporatism:

Free Market theorists like Ludwig von Mises would describe corporatism as anathema to their vision of capitalism. In the kind of capitalism such theorists advocate, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, the government's role in the economy is restricted to safeguarding the autonomous operation of the free market. However, many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.

Von Mises is one of only a handful of economists endorsed by the 'great' Ayn Rand, lone artistic champion of Capitalism.

In my opinion, the key moment is when the corporation is given a weapon such as summary detainment of workers or extreme disciplinary authorization. Recently, there was an American CEO who fired four of his employees for being smokers. Not for smoking at work but for BEING smokers. His reasoning was, "Giving benefits for smokers is too expensive." The four employees are suing. Cases like this will indicate corporate power and help us gauge it. I think what's more troubling is the fear about getting 'fired' that exists in America. The corporations have done no service to the jobless and homeless. They have purposefully created a great fear of being out of work. They have made the bottom very hard for anyone who 'loses everything'. Still, that American who loses his job probably chose to load hmself up with absurd debt, so he really only has himself to cry to when financial collapse occurs after a year without work, or whatever.

I do not believe this authority will ever be given to corporations. Personally, I think that all of this has been set up to accomodate Martial Law, which I believe is pending. Injectable microchips are a hairsbreadth away and you can bet that a lot of Americans will think they're 'a good idea to protect us.' Once Martial Law is declared, the primary division becomes Citizen and Non-Citizen. Nobody will be allowed to quit their jobs on penalty of imprisonment and revocation of citizenship. As Bush said, "If you're not with US (READ: Anything I say) you are with the terrorists (READ: You ARE a terrorist)".

See, it's much easier for the Federal Gov't and the Corporations to play Good-Cop/Bad-Cop with us. The Fed will be the Bad-Cop and your corporate employer will be the Good-Cop. Under Martial Law, if the government says, "Do not quit your job because America needs steady corporate production in this time of crisis" and you do, they will label you a terrorist.

Once the government clamps down, for whatever reason, the corporations will look like saviors rather than anything negative. That's the way they planned it. Meanwhile everyone who refused to become 'citizens' due to objections to biometrics, microchips or whatever, will be scrabbling outside like...

Well... like Iraqis.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:31 AM

Good post, thanks.

Seems to me that corporations are appropriating more power over people every day - and our Constitutional freedoms just don't apply inside a corporation, because they are rights conferred by citizenship in the nation, not association with a corporation... It's a different relationship.

Not being clear here, I know, but do you get what I'm saying?


posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:17 PM

corporations are appropriating more power over people every day

Heck yeah. But to American workers, their job is like their Mommy. In America, people will do anything to keep from being out-of-work both due to the social stigma and the financial strain since American's have so much credit card debt. That same debt is engineered through endless television commercials telling them to cash in their home equity, live the good life, etc.

Another really stupid thing that 9-5 corporate work causes is that your friendships become work-based. You end up having friends at work, which acts as another rope tying you down because quitting or getting fired means losing your circle of freinds and entering a new social group at your new employer.

People don't socialize at parks or places like that anymore. They go home to their rented apartment (non-equity-producing-housing paid for by their corporate job) and they drink beer (addictive corporate life-wrecking product) and socialize with their workmates (corporate friends).

More and more, the company becomes the rotational center of people's lives. These same corporations hold the rudder of the nation anyway due to lobbying and special interests. Bush or Kerry would've done what they were told, regardless. That's how you get ahead in politics: Do what you're told.

Can a nation provide jobs? Yes, in a socialist system. Is living in a socialist system better? No. Is it better than living in a combination Martial Law/Oligarchic state? Probably not, but we'll find out.

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 02:13 PM
Just read this on Yahoo:

China has created brand-new form of capitalism: Bill Gates

DAVOS, Switzerland, (AFP) - US software giant Bill Gates has high praise for China, which he says has created a brand-new form of capitalism that benefits consumers more than anything has in the past.

"It is a brand-new form of capitalism, and as a consumer its the best thing that ever happened," Gates told an informal meeting late Friday at the World Economic Forum in this ski resort.

He characterised the Chinese model in terms of "willingness to work hard and not having quite the same medical overhead or legal overhead."

Ahh yes, the communist worker and his 'lack of medical overhead'.

Billgatus of Borg salivating at the prospect of another nation shackled to his craptastic MS Windows, just before he hits the slopes. It truly is a beautiful world.

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Ahh yes, the communist worker and his 'lack of medical overhead'.

GREAT find!

Now, wtf was he talking about? ...I mean is there really something better going on with Chinese capitalism? Do they maybe protect their people better??? ...Not that I want it, but maybe just the good bits.


posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 05:18 PM
Communism, as a concept is great.....everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Early communal-Christian concepts are similar, everyone gets what they need. Anything extra is your business to take care of however you wish, as it is yours......
Neither get to fully work because people are selfish and want to use everything for their own benefit....*sigh*

The bigger the country, the less the people INDIVIDUALLY have a say. Groups have a say. My personal rights are cramped to make room for my neighbors constntly, get used to it after a while.

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 05:41 PM
Here's the link:

China has created brand-new form of capitalism: Bill Gates

Basically, in retarded verbage, he is saying that there is a much larger rural community that can enjoy a better life by becoming corporate workers in the cities without expecting high wages. He implies that America has reached the point where wages are unrealistic.

Funny how a billion dollars is never enough, eh?

There's more from this gab session at this link:

[LatelineNews: 2005-1-29] DAVOS, Switzerland - Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corp and the world's richest man, is expecting the dollar to fall further while China continues its phenomenal growth.
"The old dollar, it's going to go down," he told a fringe meeting at the World Economic Forum late on Friday. "I am short of the dollar."

Echoing the views of many other executives in Davos, Gates said the size of the U.S. trade and budget deficits was alarming.

"It's a bit scary. We are in uncharted territory having the world's reserve currency having so much outstanding debt," he said.

China, meanwhile, was an emerging powerhouse that would continue to drive down prices in the years ahead as its promotes what Gates described as a brand new form of capitalism.

"China is the change agent for these next 20 years, in terms of what's competitive and how things get done," Gates said.

"It's the most deflationary thing that ever happened because as you get more IQ in the planet designing good products you get these scale economies that are just phenomenal."

Did he say 'scale economies'?

I'd say that pretty much answers your question right there. He sees himself as originating some sort of new political/economical system.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by smallpeeps]

[edit on 29-1-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 09:09 PM
Corporate states are the reason I am against the current rend toward privatization. In my opinion when a corporation takes over the functions of a state it becomes the state.

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by boogyman
. In my opinion when a corporation takes over the functions of a state it becomes the state.

HMMM. That's a teaser.

Would you care to expand that thought?


posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:25 PM

when a corporation takes over the functions of a state it becomes the state.

Yeah, but does Microsoft have the right to detain its employees in cages just because somebody leaked code to the outside? No. I don't think that will ever happen because it's better to cultivate the lie that corporations are not connected to the 'official' government. They'll just have the state SS march him out of his cube.

The corporation survives on its brand. Brands are either hated or loved, but they are morally neutral. For example; the swastika was a 'brand'. If the swastika-brand is on the arm of the guy kicking your wife, it's a thing you hate. If the swastika-brand is on the arm of your son, who is in the Panzer Brigade circa 1939, it is a thing of great pride (at least until you find out that the Nazi 'company' had sold your son out).

For those who have travelled and seen all the different brands that exist globally, you quickly realize that brands are emotional triggers and have no meaning until we connect with them emotionally.

Brands are just like the swastika or any country's flag, for that matter. If you think about it, any emotion triggered when you see a brand name image is engineered inside your head.

When an American child sees the McDonald's flag, he clicks his heels together.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by smallpeeps]

top topics


log in